Is eco-civilisation compatible with democracy?

[northernmonkey]

Not possible! Books and all that... We can't go backwards culturally. Not that far, anyway.

It's hard to imagine isn't it.

All it takes is time. Five thousand years, say, of decline should do it. Possibly less. You can forget a lot in that amount of time.

[UndercoverElephant]

Not possible! Books and all that... We can't go backwards culturally. Not that far, anyway.

It's hard to imagine isn't it.

Impossible. Arguably the two most important "ratchet effect" technological advances in human history were the phonetic alphabet and the printing press. In both cases they improved communication and permitted the retention of other cultural advances to such an enormous degree that it is unimaginable either they or the advances they enabled to be reversed.

All it takes is time. Five thousand years, say, of decline should do it. Possibly less. You can forget a lot in that amount of time.

If the printing press had been invented 5000 years ago then we would know a lot more about the world of 5000 years ago. Also, the current collapse would probably have happened at least 4000 years ago.

[northernmonkey]

Firstly, most people don't know or care about how most technology works. They just use it. And I really do mean most people. The responsibility for the cultural transmission of the knowledge of how to make that technology is held in the heads of a tiny percentage of the population and the knowledge of how to maintain it is held in an albeit slightly larger, but still small percentage of heads. Indeed, I would argue that, if left to their own devices in the absence of any working technology, a significant portion of the human race would revert to hunter gathering in very short order. Or, at least, they would if there was anything to hunt and gather. Which, of course, due to industrial farming and the trashing of the natural eco-system, there largely isn't. At least currently.

[Vortex2]

You can forget a lot in that amount of time.

Hmm. The new AI systems can contain the bulk of the worlds knowledge in as little as 30GB ... in otherwords, a small memory stick.

We would have good knowledge for many decades following a collapse, so that might slow/stop the descent.

[clv101]

Yes, this is remarkable. These LLMs represent incredible levels of (lossy) data compression.

[northernmonkey]

As a matter of interest, what do you think was the reason for the printing press not being invented five thousand years ago? The technology is straightforward enough and is definitely pre-industrial. So, there was no technological impediment to it having been invented five thousand years ago. We had civilization five thousand years ago with complex language and information storage requirements. We certainly had it, say, three thousand years ago.

To historically clarify here, the Chinese are known to have used woodblock printing at least as early as the 9th century. But, it is Gutenberg that is credited with inventing the printing press around 1436.

[northernmonkey]

You can forget a lot in that amount of time.

Hmm. The new AI systems can contain the bulk of the worlds knowledge in as little as 30GB ... in otherwords, a small memory stick.

We would have good knowledge for many decades following a collapse, so that might slow/stop the descent.

Indeed. However, I am talking about deep cultural time. Several hundred to a few thousand years.

[northernmonkey]

Evolution works fastest during times of great stress and die-off.

Punctuated Equilibrium. Yes, that is quite so. However, biological evolution operates on biological forms (including innate behaviors, of course), not learned cultural ones. Or, at least, it may be argued to indirectly operate on learned cultural forms at a push, I guess, if we include the heritable capacity to learn itself. But, we have a very, very long way to go down the cultural evolution route of civilizational degradation/simplification before we start to push up against the hard constraints of biological evolution. The problem, here, is in order to get the eco-civilization you are promoting, we would need cultural forms to be available for cultural selection that don't exist in sufficient quantity and, crucially, cant exist in sufficient quantity without further biological evolution of the capacity to be less selfish, less stupid and less cowardly. But, such capacities don't tend to exist in nature because they have either no effect (nature can't think ahead) or have a detrimental effect (nice guys finish last) on biological reproductive success. In other words, they are rarely selected for and are often selected against. We humans evolved our current levels of intelligence, courage and selfishness because of their evolutionary fitness relative to the demands of the environment of our Neolithic and (lower to middle) Paleolithic ancestors. But, as you have said, that evolutionary pressure has since been suspended. We are still middle to upper Paleolithic humans. And it shows, don't you think.

That depends on how far backwards we've gone biologically since natural selection was effectively suspended.

It was effectively suspended at some point in the upper Paleolithic for an ever growing majority of humans. However, the amount of consequent genetic drift that will undoubtedly have occurred in the last, say, eight thousand years is not likely to be significant.

[BritDownUnder]

To historically clarify here, the Chinese are known to have used woodblock printing at least as early as the 9th century. But, it is Gutenberg that is credited with inventing the printing press around 1436.

I recall being told it was using metal movable type that made Gutenberg stand out.

[northernmonkey]

To historically clarify here, the Chinese are known to have used woodblock printing at least as early as the 9th century. But, it is Gutenberg that is credited with inventing the printing press around 1436.

I recall being told it was using metal movable type that made Gutenberg stand out.

I think it was his putting to new use of the already existing technology of the skrew wine press

[UndercoverElephant]

To historically clarify here, the Chinese are known to have used woodblock printing at least as early as the 9th century. But, it is Gutenberg that is credited with inventing the printing press around 1436.

I recall being told it was using metal movable type that made Gutenberg stand out.

He brought together a whole bunch of technologies to make that work. People had been working on printing for decades. Gutenberg is famous because he was the first to perfect the technology.

[UndercoverElephant]

Firstly, most people don't know or care about how most technology works. They just use it.

That doesn't matter. All that matters if that somebody knows how it works.

The responsibility for the cultural transmission of the knowledge of how to make that technology is held in the heads of a tiny percentage of the population and the knowledge of how to maintain it is held in an albeit slightly larger, but still small percentage of heads.

It is also in a very large amount of books. That is the whole point!

Indeed, I would argue that, if left to their own devices in the absence of any working technology, a significant portion of the human race would revert to hunter gathering in very short order.

Why? Why wouldn't they read books?

[BritDownUnder]

It would be an interesting thought experiment to imagine how long literacy would hang on post collapse. Perhaps it may be needed to 'get things to work' but may not be considered useful in, for instance, a hunter gatherer society.

[UndercoverElephant]

As a matter of interest, what do you think was the reason for the printing press not being invented five thousand years ago? The technology is straightforward enough and is definitely pre-industrial. So, there was no technological impediment to it having been invented five thousand years ago. We had civilization five thousand years ago with complex language and information storage requirements. We certainly had it, say, three thousand years ago.

To historically clarify here, the Chinese are known to have used woodblock printing at least as early as the 9th century. But, it is Gutenberg that is credited with inventing the printing press around 1436.

The Chinese had neither a phonetic alphabet nor the metallurgic skills required for casting movable metal type.

[northernmonkey]

Why? Why wouldn't they read books?

I guess you'd need to ask them. The fact remains that most people in the absence of continued exposure and, often, coercion in their early years, dont tend to read. Right up until universal compulsory education, most people could barely read or write even though written materials - along with the printing press - had already been in circulation for a few centuries. It was typical, when the latest news pamphlet arrived in town, for everyone to gather round the designated "reader" who would read it out for them.

Fast forward to today, where most news and entertainment can be consumed visually and auditorily and reading can be circumvented as a means of finding out what you need or want to know. Literacy is falling precipitously here in the West.

Most people are just cavemen in shoes.